One thing I don't think most people appreciate is that Apple alleged infringement on a whole host of patents and design, but judges in these various cases have always asked them to narrow their scope to a small, legally manageable number of claims.
That seems to be my recollection as well. Along with rubber banding we can add the packaging, general appearance, accessories (USB chargers, for instance, not to mention a son of Samsung's CEO - if I recall correctly - putting out a copy of the Smart Cover) all adding up to a copy-cat product that many unwittingly think will be as good as an Apple product because it looks so similar to one.
Bullshit! That is like claiming that content owners aren't affected by illegal pirating because a small subset of people who pirate are not able to buy the content.
It most certainly hurt the iPhone in markets in which it competed with Samsung (which is every market in which the iPhone is offered). Further it limits apples ability to expand into new markets.
How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.
Indeed. This rubber band case has been stretched too long.
How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
Damages did happen. There is no might or might not about it.
But whatever, new markets aside, you are still pretending there is no infringement in markets where the iPhone is being sold. And again I say: Bullshit.
Damages did happen. There is no might or might not about it.
But whatever, new markets aside, you are still pretending there is no infringement in markets where the iPhone is being sold. And again I say: Bullshit.
No I didn't say that, I'm questioning about markets the iPhone didn't exist in.
Very little if at all because many of the infringing devices were sold in countries in which the iPhone was not available or on a carrier that didn't carry the iPhone.
Your whole argument is a red herring (markets in which the iPhone is unavailable is totally, completely, ABSOLUTELY irrelevant)
No it is not. Say you invent something and sold it regionally in a no bigger than a tri-state area, and someone else has the same patented invention somewhere overseas. Yes you're guilty of infringing but what irreparable damage did you cost to his sales?
No it is not. Say you invent something and sold it regionally in a no bigger than a tri-state area, and someone else has the same patented invention somewhere overseas. Yes you're guilty of infringing but what irreparable damage did you cost to his sales?
First and foremost, we are not talking about someone else with the same patented invention, we are talking about someone else who blatantly stole from the inventor.
That aside, lets suppose I agreed with you that Samsung competing in outside markets causes no damage (I still don't for reasons I already mentioned). Your original claim of little to no damage only holds true if the two parties are not competing in the same market. That assumption is (still) bullshit. Apple and Samsung do compete in the same markets.
Further, suppose Apple only sold the iPhone to half the world (let's call it half A) and Samsung comes along and sells a copycat to the whole world (half A and . According to your original argument the damage would be limited because the iPhone doesn't compete in half B. The reality is Samsung does cause damage because in half A every single person who is looking at an iPhone has a Samsung phone advertising itself as the same thing for less money. In this scenario Samsung has the potential to disrupt 100% of iPhone sales. Half B is irrelevant when discussing the amount of damage done; that's why your argument is a red herring.
Assuming the premise of your argument, the relevant data point is the intersection of Markets where the iPhone is available with markets where Samsung is available compared with all markets where the iPhone is available.
First and foremost, we are not talking about someone else with the same patented invention, we are talking about someone else who blatantly stole from the inventor.
That aside, lets suppose I agreed with you that Samsung competing in outside markets causes no damage (I still don't for reasons I already mentioned). Your original claim of little to no damage only holds true if the two parties are not competing in the same market. That assumption is (still) bullshit. Apple and Samsung do compete in the same markets.
Further, suppose Apple only sold the iPhone to half the world (let's call it half A) and Samsung comes along and sells a copycat to the whole world (half A and . According to your original argument the damage would be limited because the iPhone doesn't compete in half B. The reality is Samsung does cause damage because in half A every single person who is looking at an iPhone has a Samsung phone advertising itself as the same thing for less money. In this scenario Samsung has the potential to disrupt 100% of iPhone sales. Half B is irrelevant when discussing the amount of damage done; that's why your argument is a red herring.
Assuming the premise of your argument, the relevant data point is the intersection of Markets where the iPhone is available with markets where Samsung is available compared with all markets where the iPhone is available.
I never said anything about 'half A', of course damage was done and even then it's not much (we all saw the true sales figures), all I'm saying is that how could there be irreparable monetary losses in markets that Apple couldn't of possibly made any money. Yes people could buy unlocked iPhones but those people circumvented the smartphone market in place of which Apple isn't/wasn't a part of.
Comments
That seems to be my recollection as well. Along with rubber banding we can add the packaging, general appearance, accessories (USB chargers, for instance, not to mention a son of Samsung's CEO - if I recall correctly - putting out a copy of the Smart Cover) all adding up to a copy-cat product that many unwittingly think will be as good as an Apple product because it looks so similar to one.
How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
The problem with patent litigation is that everything takes too long. By the time a judgement is finally made the damage has been irreparably done and the pay out, no matter how large can not undo the lost sales/traction that your product had.
Indeed. This rubber band case has been stretched too long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
How can damages be assessed on a market in which it was impossible for consumers to purchase a iPhone instead of a Samsung device? You also can't sue for what might or might not happen.
Attempted murder?
Really? You're going to compare a criminal offense to a civil one?
Really? You get called out for randomly changing the argument and you keep on doing it? :no:
Snap!
Damages did happen. There is no might or might not about it.
But whatever, new markets aside, you are still pretending there is no infringement in markets where the iPhone is being sold. And again I say: Bullshit.
No I didn't say that, I'm questioning about markets the iPhone didn't exist in.
Your exact words:
(Emphasis mine)
I was referring to damage not infringement.
And I'm telling you damage exists.
Your whole argument is a red herring (markets in which the iPhone is unavailable is totally, completely, ABSOLUTELY irrelevant)
No it is not. Say you invent something and sold it regionally in a no bigger than a tri-state area, and someone else has the same patented invention somewhere overseas. Yes you're guilty of infringing but what irreparable damage did you cost to his sales?
First and foremost, we are not talking about someone else with the same patented invention, we are talking about someone else who blatantly stole from the inventor.
That aside, lets suppose I agreed with you that Samsung competing in outside markets causes no damage (I still don't for reasons I already mentioned). Your original claim of little to no damage only holds true if the two parties are not competing in the same market. That assumption is (still) bullshit. Apple and Samsung do compete in the same markets.
Further, suppose Apple only sold the iPhone to half the world (let's call it half A) and Samsung comes along and sells a copycat to the whole world (half A and
Assuming the premise of your argument, the relevant data point is the intersection of Markets where the iPhone is available with markets where Samsung is available compared with all markets where the iPhone is available.
I never said anything about 'half A', of course damage was done and even then it's not much (we all saw the true sales figures), all I'm saying is that how could there be irreparable monetary losses in markets that Apple couldn't of possibly made any money. Yes people could buy unlocked iPhones but those people circumvented the smartphone market in place of which Apple isn't/wasn't a part of.